Bestiality and Lack of Consent

Posted: December 12, 2010 by stopbestiality in Academic studies, Animal Abuse, Anti-bestiality, Consent

Guess what turns out to be one of the single largest reasons both men and women to engage in bestiality?  Yup, the fact that no negotiation is required.

Translation, folks: no negotiation = no consent.

“Perreti and Rowan (1983) investigated a sample of 27 men and 24 women, aged 17 to 28, who had practiced sexual contact with animals at least twice a month for a minimum of 2 years…

“… For the majority of men (93%) sexual expressiveness was a factor for engaging in sexual contact with animals over this long period of time.  Sexual fantasies were named by 81%, no need for negotiation by 74%, no human social involvements necessary by 63%, economical reasons by 59%, and emotional involvement by 26% of the men.  The most important factors for the women were emotional involvement (88%), no human social involvements necessary (75%), no negotiation (58%), sexual expressiveness (46%), sexual fantasy (38%), and economical reasons (21%).”  [bold emphasis added] (p. 213)

– Andrea M. Beetz in The International Handbook of Animal Abuse and Cruelty: Theory, Research, and Application, ed. Frank R. Ascione, PhD

“The opinion prevails that any form of sexual contact with animals and especially penetrative acts are per se abusive, since it is not possible – as with children or the mentally impaired – to obtain consent to such an act from the animal (Ascione, 1993; Beirne, 2000).  Beirne (2000) provided a thorough and informative discussion of this question of consent and argued for a definition of any kind of sexual contact with animals as interspecies sexual assault…”

– ibid.; p. 210

“Beirne (2000) states that, independent from the kind of force used and the reactions of the animals, all sexual acts between humans and animals are wrong.  One argument he proposed is the potential for coercion that prevails in almost every situation between humans and animals…  Physical, psychological, economic, or emotional coercion is almost always involved in sexual approaches to animals (Adms, 1995, cited by Beirne, 2000), as in the sexual assault of children or women, and therefore consent cannot be given, and the sexual activity is forced (Beirne 2000).  The decisive criterion… is not the imbalance of power, but rather that one of the involved parties cannot consent or communicate such consent to sexual acts.  Both involved parties must be conscious, fully informed, and positive in their desires in order to be able to give genuine consent [emphasis added].

– ibid.; p. 211

Bottom line – if you fuck animals, or engage in any other form of sexual contact with them, you are engaging in nonconsensual behavior with a creature that is unable to consent.  This is not a kink; it’s sexual abuse of a helpless animal, end of story.  It’s a sickness, just the same as sexual abuse of children.  Your kink is not OK; sorry.  End of story.  It’s no more OK than it’s OK to push yourself nonconsensually on another adult, which behaviour we rightly routinely condemn in the BDSM community.

The section goes on to detail other characteristics of people who engage in sexual abuse of animals.  None of it points to being particularly well-adjusted.  It also delves more deeply into these connections with the known interaction of animal sexual abuse with violence against people and child sexual abuse.

  1. Steve says:

    Non consent from the animals and it’s implications is a stupid argument.

    Does a budgie consent to be in a cage, a pig consent to be bacon, a guide dog to being strapped into a harness and live a life of servitude. How is it different if a dog licks your face compared to your genitals? Do they generally like sex with each other – presumably – with a person ?? I’ve never seen it but dogs do tend to display their happiness – tail wagging etc. The difference here is that this is sex, which the uptight prudes have issues with.

    Your issue with this is that it puts blokes in a position where women don’t get to control their access to sex.

    • Are you serious? Take a read through the rest of this blog if you honestly question this. Particularly pay attention to the post entitled “Negative Effects of Bestiality on Dogs”.

      If you don’t mind risking your own dong, then don’t let the study showing a doubled increase in penile cancer among men who fuck animals bother you, either.

      And trust me, I’ve never been accused of being a prude, nor have the vast majority of people I know who are equally opposed to bestiality.

      So, not getting any, Unique_Stephen? Or will only the dog have you?

      It never entered my mind that opposition to bestiality had anything to do with women controlling men’s access to sex. Why would it have occurred to you?

      I wasn’t going to release your comment publicly, but then decided that since you are evidently fond of emunctories, and consider the Internet to be your very own, I’d let you plaster your own self, since you offered your own self up on that altar.

      Oh, and by the way, the “it’s” in your first sentence is properly spelled without an apostrophe in this situation.

  2. […] problem with the status quo, they argued, was the inability of an animal to offer meaningful consent; as such, bestiality was viewed to be somewhat akin to statutory rape. Over the past few years, […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s